Eskimo

Math is the best! Calculus is easy, if you can't learn it, you're just not being taught right. I could teach you two semesters in two days. It's just the first step though. Once you get comfortable with it (not a hard thing to do... slopes and areas! O.O) it opens you up to learn all the interesting concepts like Fourier analysis.

<br />How do you expect to catch criminal speeders without on a horse or bicycle? Why are we even talking about emissions in the first place?<br />

Absolutely, but police aren't engaged in chases 8 hours a day. No reason an attempt at emission reduction shouldn't be made. Vehicle emissions are being discussed because both issues revolve around public health, however there seems to be a double standard. People care deeply about one, but not the other. If the all-mighty dollar is the reason, then obviously people aren't especially concerned about health.<br /><br /><br />

<br />This isn't an argument about equality, and there's absolutely no reason to try and twist words to do such. There are absolutely no words I use that could even be construed as implying that nonsmokers are superior to smokers, and the statement you made doesn't hold water. You can take it to mean that I do not believe smoking has anything to do with equality.<br />

Equality should always be checked when deciding laws. Every person should be treated the same under law. If a particular business owner decides it would be best to separate smokers and nonsmokers, fine, that's his/her choice, but under law, smokers and nonsmokers ought to be considered as equals and separate is not equal.<br /><br /><br />

<br />My definition of 'need' is the same definition that is used in Merriam Websters:<br />

I'm not going to argue semantics. There is a reason people would pass up a higher income: public health (which is what I interpreted as the primary issue in this discussion) is why. If there isn't room to discuss this, then there's no reason to discuss public-health issues concerning second-hand smoke as it's effects are better understood and agreed upon.<br /><br /><br />

<br />I don't know how you obtain what is relevant or not from two sentences. We do not pass legislation simply because it does nothing beneficial, we pass legislation because there is scientific research backing the negative health effects on smoking. I've already told my views on the combustion levels. Please find something to dispute that.<br />

There's scientific research alright, but the interpretations aren't agreed on. jcrboy's quotes regarding second-hand smoke say what should be.<br /><br /><br />

<br />Congrats, you've found experiments that were not done under the scientific method. You've found real people who work for bosses who form experiments to get certain outcomes. However, the last quote you posted I find pretty interesting, seems like that guy has made a living on manipulating the English language. Let me summarize the quote real quick, in a more casual vernacular.:<br />

I interpreted that quote as something to this effect: &quot;There is no baseline to make a comparison with. No control group means you can only trust the studies to a point.&quot;<br /><br /><br />

<br />You still have yet to argue points about red-eye and discomfort. You have yet to argue points about difficulty of breathing. You have yet to argue points about smell.<br />

I believe I did somewhere within this topic. Suck it up or go somewhere else. I grew up around smokers and it's not that bad. If it's REALlY an issue for you, there's probably an underlying cause like asthma or allergies that's being agitated by cigarette smoke. Of course that isn't to say it's not caused by cigarette smoke, who knows? However, it could just as easily be smog or a myriad of other things, and you should be able to prove cigarettes are the culprit beyond a reasonable doubt before you start passing laws.

I've done this before, i used a program I think was called "Share Pod" or something similar.

Ghostez iz real dawg, I sawd one!